Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey's Licensing team
This sub-thread was moved from another discussion.
By Clive Carter 7 hours ago
I am sure those in the Licensing Authority have a stressful job and sometimes this expresses itself in terse, brusque notes to potential Objectors. I suspect Objectors are seen by Haringey as naive, ignorant fools, because Haringey understands the law well and know the futility of Objection under current legislation. I am told that Haringey threatened one persistent campaigner with an injunction.
While the present law obtains, there will either be continuous aggravation or resentment.
Betting operators will just laugh at posts on Facebook: and laugh all the way to the bank. The Act that enabled saturation betting shops needs to be reversed in the same way it came into being: by the lobbying of politicians.
To give an example of how the betting lobby works, in submissions to the DCMS prior to the "reform" of the Gambling Act, one of the contributors was listed as just "Lexington". (Was this the PR firm Lexington Communications who had represented casino interests in the past? The same PR firm retained by Haringey Council when they tried to sell Alexandra Palace to Firoka, with a Lease that specifically allowed a casino?)
The public did not clamour for the Gambling Act: let us not pretend that politicians are innocent in all this. It is time that they took responsibility for the laws they have visited upon the community.
Reply by Alan Stanton 7 hours ago
● "I suspect Objectors are seen by Haringey as naive, ignorant fools, because Haringey understands the law well and know the futility of Objection under current legislation."
Please post evidence of this.
● "I am told that Haringey threatened one persistent campaigner with an injunction."
Please post evidence.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor. And not a member of a Licensing Panel)
Reply by Clive Carter 6 hours ago
Alan I am not going to embarrass the particular individuals involved: but the rude emails to a potential objector (not me), copies of which I have seen, were recent. The Licensing Officer is working under a lot of pressure as I acknowledged, but the aggravation has increased as a result of the Gambling Act.
I am prepared to believe that you had no hand in the promotion of this Act.
But rather than doubting or questioning examples of the aggravation it has caused, it might be more constructive to turn your mind to ways of amending the legislation, effectively.
Reply by Alan Stanton 6 hours ago
As you know, Clive, I sometimes praise what the Council does. But I've never held back on justified and, if necessary, public criticism of council departments or teams; of misguided policies; and of individual councillors.
I also provide examples and evidence to support my criticisms.
Of course, I sometimes get things wrong - occasionally, badly wrong. And then I withdraw my criticisms and offer an apology.
As a local councillor, residents often tell me about things the Council got wrong or did badly. I neither doubt nor dismiss what they say. But I do want to see the evidence. I ask questions: Who? What? Where? When?
You've made serious allegations on a public website. I am neither doubting nor dismissing what you wrote. But apparently, you are not prepared to be questioned, nor to produce any evidence.
Reply by Clive Carter 5 hours ago
Alan I will email you privately and you can judge for yourself. But all I'm pointing out is that the Gambling Act is causing more stress in the Licensing department as well as dissent in the community. I have no wish to cause trouble to council employees trying their best to do their job, work to New Labour's Gambling Act under stressful conditions.
Some residents out there, who would wish to object to yet more Premises Applications, are unfamiliar with the Act and harbour the illusion that Objectors will get a fair Hearing rather than be treated to a charade.
But I hardly think further evidence of this aggravation is needed and I think you anyway know this. As a councillor in a Ward that is affected by this, what do you think is the best way forward? Do you think politicians have a responsibility to correct bad legislation? If so, what do you propose?
By Clive Carter 7 hours ago
I am sure those in the Licensing Authority have a stressful job and sometimes this expresses itself in terse, brusque notes to potential Objectors. I suspect Objectors are seen by Haringey as naive, ignorant fools, because Haringey understands the law well and know the futility of Objection under current legislation. I am told that Haringey threatened one persistent campaigner with an injunction.
While the present law obtains, there will either be continuous aggravation or resentment.
Betting operators will just laugh at posts on Facebook: and laugh all the way to the bank. The Act that enabled saturation betting shops needs to be reversed in the same way it came into being: by the lobbying of politicians.
To give an example of how the betting lobby works, in submissions to the DCMS prior to the "reform" of the Gambling Act, one of the contributors was listed as just "Lexington". (Was this the PR firm Lexington Communications who had represented casino interests in the past? The same PR firm retained by Haringey Council when they tried to sell Alexandra Palace to Firoka, with a Lease that specifically allowed a casino?)
The public did not clamour for the Gambling Act: let us not pretend that politicians are innocent in all this. It is time that they took responsibility for the laws they have visited upon the community.
Reply by Alan Stanton 7 hours ago
● "I suspect Objectors are seen by Haringey as naive, ignorant fools, because Haringey understands the law well and know the futility of Objection under current legislation."
Please post evidence of this.
● "I am told that Haringey threatened one persistent campaigner with an injunction."
Please post evidence.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor. And not a member of a Licensing Panel)
Reply by Clive Carter 6 hours ago
Alan I am not going to embarrass the particular individuals involved: but the rude emails to a potential objector (not me), copies of which I have seen, were recent. The Licensing Officer is working under a lot of pressure as I acknowledged, but the aggravation has increased as a result of the Gambling Act.
I am prepared to believe that you had no hand in the promotion of this Act.
But rather than doubting or questioning examples of the aggravation it has caused, it might be more constructive to turn your mind to ways of amending the legislation, effectively.
Reply by Alan Stanton 6 hours ago
As you know, Clive, I sometimes praise what the Council does. But I've never held back on justified and, if necessary, public criticism of council departments or teams; of misguided policies; and of individual councillors.
I also provide examples and evidence to support my criticisms.
Of course, I sometimes get things wrong - occasionally, badly wrong. And then I withdraw my criticisms and offer an apology.
As a local councillor, residents often tell me about things the Council got wrong or did badly. I neither doubt nor dismiss what they say. But I do want to see the evidence. I ask questions: Who? What? Where? When?
You've made serious allegations on a public website. I am neither doubting nor dismissing what you wrote. But apparently, you are not prepared to be questioned, nor to produce any evidence.
Reply by Clive Carter 5 hours ago
Alan I will email you privately and you can judge for yourself. But all I'm pointing out is that the Gambling Act is causing more stress in the Licensing department as well as dissent in the community. I have no wish to cause trouble to council employees trying their best to do their job, work to New Labour's Gambling Act under stressful conditions.
Some residents out there, who would wish to object to yet more Premises Applications, are unfamiliar with the Act and harbour the illusion that Objectors will get a fair Hearing rather than be treated to a charade.
But I hardly think further evidence of this aggravation is needed and I think you anyway know this. As a councillor in a Ward that is affected by this, what do you think is the best way forward? Do you think politicians have a responsibility to correct bad legislation? If so, what do you propose?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I think a note of realism is needed here.
Haringey (it's employees and elected members) are not the ones who brought about changes to the Gambling Act but they are the ones who are expected to administer it. I sure that, just like the authority I work for, they raised concerns during the consultation stage of the draft changes, but it was Parliament who adopted the proposals into law.
There is no excuse for staff being rude but having been at their end of the phone, sometimes dealing with people who are swearing and shouting at me because they think I can personally overturn the law in their favour (planning in my case) I understand the amount of pressure they are under. And of course they get it from both sides, the unhappy resident AND the unhappy applicants (or their lawyers).
Given the mess this legislation has lead to I think we need to adopt a different approach to how Haringey and the public work on this.
Firstly Haringey have to be completely transparent about how the law works and what their and our options are and publish this in plain English and other languages. Get in on the website, in leaflets and in consultation materials.
Secondly we need to direct our concerns to where they might have some impact. At those applying under the Act and at Government for urgent changes.
There has been quite a lot of poo pooing about contacting BetFred et all but they do not want negative publicity. I know a lot of the people who use this site are very media savvy and have media connections they could use. David Lammy has already made a move to get this debated in Parliament (yes, I know he was in government when the acts was passed but we are looking at what to do now so let's not knock down any ladders) and HoL members in Hornsey and Wood Green have an elected member who is part of the coalition government.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Punters are not concerned or affected by bad publicity alone – any negative publiclity for betting shops is water of a duck's back: unless it affects income.
It might help if Haringey Licensing would politely and patiently disabuse potential Objectors at an early stage, pointing out that in their wisdom, Parliament (read: the New Labour Government) made the grounds for objection particularly narrow.
Plus, the chances of success on the limited grounds negligible, given that the Licensing Authority and Courts are directly to "aim to permit [Licence Applications]".
The message that must go out, should be: if you don't like it, contact your MP and get the law fixed.
Local Authorities who feel under pressure (and they are the meat in the sandwich here) should make their own representations to the Government.
-
-
They do make representations Clive.
On the act itself
The Act gives its objectives as
"(a) preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
(b) ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
(c) protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling."
Objections to an application need to concentrate on these points
-
Permalink Reply by Lynne on
-
Dear Alan,
Can't help replying to this one.
From personal experience in my and other residents attempting to provide opposition to a gambling license application a few moons ago, it is simply exasperating. Once you get your head round the nominal grounds of objection, chances of winning are non existant and the best you can hope for is conditions.
If residents feel like that, then what must members of the licensing team be going through? trouble is Ms Barrett and others have to repeat the frustration of dealing and communicating the shortcomings of The Gambling Act 2005 to us poor mortals each day of the week. There are only so many ways that you can tell someone 'give it up luv'.
I remember Ms Barrett gushed out on many occasions that all our arguments were just not going to hold legal water, sometimes the emails were very raw indeed, both ways. Can only guess that this frustration does manifest itself to the poor layman who stumbles idly into this, and resembles having to climb a precipice without foot holes. DB must surely be fed up from explaining that there are what amounts to no steady handles by which a resident can oppose a gambling license application under this hyenous and preditory piece of legislation.
It really is down to the politicians to do something about it, residents are united on this one, correction of the Act has been mentioned, personally anything short of repeal is an insult to people's intelligence and legalising the vulnerable to be preyed on,
Lynne
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Hi Lynne, Sorry not to have seen and replied to your posting before now.
I'm not going to comment on emails I haven't seen. However, Clive Carter (above) sent me a copy of the email thread he referred to. I can't see much point going over it again.
As a general point, you're right that the staff dealing with licensing have a hard job facing the frustration of members of the public. "Surely I must be able to object because there are too many betting shops?" If it's any consolation councillors share this deep frustration.
Michael Anderson describes the piggy-in-the-middle situation council staff find themselves in. I recognise situations like those I've been in when phoning staff. But, as you say, "there are only so many ways that [they] can tell someone . . ."
My personal preference is to be told bad news with blunt accuracy. And much though I hate being the bearer of bad news to other people ("I'm sorry, you simply don't have enough points for rehousing"), i think that giving false hope is less honest.
There seems to be general agreement that the Labour Government got it wrong. So we need new legislation. As Ian Willmore suggests, we should welcome the public support of David Lammy; with an equal welcome to Lynne Featherstone behind the scenes (or as publicly as Lynne can manage as a Minister).
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
the Labour Government got it wrong
I disagree. I think there is some fiddling around the edges here that could have a dramatic affect on the profitability of these "shops".
Seeing the "proliferation of betting shops" as the problem will not lead to a good solution (there was an old lady who swallowed a fly).
1. Banks need to treat debit card transactions in betting shops as cash withdrawals and limit them to £250 per day.
2. FOBTs need to be audited to make sure they are complying with the legislation and that the terminal just offers a "view" on a game that goes on elsewhere (just like a horse race). I suspect that given the propensity for violence that some of their customers have they are not risking a telecoms link failure and spend most of their time in "backup" mode (something the horse races don't have).
If we could object to a shop because there are "too many" of them already that could open up a new can of worms in the future. One objection, two shops, councillor who wants to restrict competition for a friend...
Alan I am beginning to find the well intentioned but slightly egoistic grand standing by our MP over this issue rather pointless. Is speaking to some bankers (mostly owned by the bloody government anyway) over lunch such mucky business? Are practical solutions beyond our politicians now that they have spent so long writing legislation that nobody enforces or is it that the photo opportunities are not so good?
Yours
Cynical, N8
-
-
Please suspend your cynicism, John. And write to both David Lammy and Lynne Featherstone setting out these ideas. And also to whichever Minister is in charge of gambling policy.
(Recently I came across an old brown newspaper cutting featuring Sir Christopher Smoothe, Minister for Chance and Speculation. Ah, innocent days! Before we realised it wasn't comic writing but futurology.)
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
